The following is part of an email from the Nader campaign (you can read the whole thing here):

Call it the no more whining campaign.

Don't tell us about Bush/Cheney.

We know already.

The sewage has risen to the surface.

The question is - what are we going to do about it?

The answer is - Nader/Gonzalez.

In response to that answer, I have a question: how?

No, really:

How?

How?  In what way is Nader/Gonzalez the answer to the question "what are we going to do about it"?  How -- in concrete terms, please, and not in a fantasytime world but in the world in which we live -- how is Nader/Gonzalez "the answer" to "it"?  ("It" referring to... unclear.  The problem of Bush/Cheney will, of course, be solved by term limits.  Let's take "it" to mean "everything that's currently wrong with the world because all Democrats and all Republicans are irreparably corrupted by the evil capitalistic system to which the rest of us are unwitting slaves."  You know, like in The Matrix.  Or something.)

The email continues:

McCain/Clinton/Obama talk and talk about change and a better world.

But they are all in the hip pocket of the corporations.

Do they advocate for single payer public national health insurance?

They do not.

Do they advocate for cutting the bloated, wasteful military budget?

They do not.

Do they advocate for putting the oil companies under the control of an active popular democracy?

They do not.

Do they stand for reversing U.S. policy in the Middle East?

They can not.

All they can do is whine and complain.

And talk about an amorphous "change."

Nader/Gonzalez on the other hand, is the can do campaign.

Where to start...  Okay: let's go way ,way, way out on a limb.  Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the assumptions this email makes are valid.  Specifically:

1. Let's assume that the major-party candidates are "in the hip pocket of the corporations."  I don't even know what that means.  The "hip pocket" thing implies something much more sinister than various administrations' friendliness to big business.  But let's take this as a valid assumption.  Barack Obama and John McCain are in the hip pocket of "the corporations."  Equally and completely.  Okay.  Next.
2. Neither Obama nor McCain "advocate for single payer public national health insurance": true.  (Whether pursuing single-payer health insurance is the best path to achieving universal health-care in America is another matter, of course, but it is certainly true that neither candidate is in favor or a single-payer scheme.)  Next.
3. The "bloated, wasteful military budget": well, it's probably the case that neither McCain nor Obama have referred to the military budget as "bloated"; fine.  Next.
4. This "putting the oil companies under the control of an active popular democracy" thing: it may be the case that I'm not smart enough to understand what's being discussed here. I'm not sure which democracy we're talking about, or which oil companies, but fuck it, Ralph, you're right, I have not heard this issue discussed.  Next.
5. Do either Obama or McCain "stand for reversing U.S. policy in the Middle East?"  Well, depends how you look at it, maybe: McCain wants to "bomb Iran," which some people might consider to be a policy reversal inasmuch as the U.S. hasn't done that before, and both Obama and McCain would like to reverse things such that the U.S. is out of Iraq as opposed to in it.  But as far as an unqualified "reversal," no, neither of them do.

So: for the sake of argument, we have now conceded all of the points made in the email above.

But the question persists: how is Nader/Gonzalez "the answer" here?  How?  Again, assuming that Obama and McCain are corrupted puppets of "the corporations" who can do nothing but "whine and complain" and speak hollow words of "change," how in Christ's name is Nader/Gonzalez the "can-do" solution here?  The Nader campaign, according to the Nader campaign, "is the can do campaign."  I want for someone to explain to me what it is that the Nader campaign can do!  Please!

There are three possible outcomes for Nader this year; they are obvious, but here they are anyway:

1. He wins.  He is as likely to win as the U.S. is to put a man on Mars by the end of next week.  He is as likely to win as Bill O'Reilly is to have a sex-change operation.  He is as likely to win as Nancy Reagan is to pose nude for Playboy.  (There's also this: if he did win, wouldn't he then have to deal with 535 legislators who are all, as far as he's concerned, "in the hip pocket of the corporations"?  How do you implement, for example, a single-payer national health plan if Congress isn't with you?  How you gonna do that, Ralph, you bitter, egotistical ass?)
2. He loses; the fact that he runs doesn't affect the outcome of the election.
3. He loses; the fact that he runs does affect the outcome in one or more states where the race is close, as it did in Florida in 2000 (yes, it did, Ralph; despite what you say, all of your supporters would not have stayed home if you hadn't run), with the result that John McCain is elected President when Barack Obama otherwise would have been.

So where does the "can-do" campaign thing come in?  Well, option 1 isn't happening.  And there's no "can-do" component to option 2.  No, "can do" comes in in item 3, because what Nader/Gonzalez can do is give us Bush/Cheney's third term (minus George Bush and Dick Cheney, of course, but still).

That, it seems to me, is what Nader/Gonzalez can do.  Again.  And take private, perverse pleasure in doing so, I'd be willing to bet.  Pleasure in punishing us, again, for not seeing America through sewage-colored glasses.